Peter King's take on all of this

[RedSoxExcel]

Brett "rolled out of bed" last year and outplayed everyone except Brady.

I don't care if Rodgers and McCarthy are sharing a bunk bed at Lambeau, this argument about offseason prowess isn't going to convince anyone but Aaron's dad.

He didn't roll out of bed last year.
Brett was DRAGGED out of bed wondering if he's gonna play or not...
Wondering if he's gonna have the 'motivation' etc..
and had to be ego stroked and coaxed into it...

AND he had to prepare like crazy w/core training etc...

So he had to bust his *** to keep his SPOT.

He outplayed everyone but Brady???

He outplayed both Mannings? umm...okay..

BRETT hasn't done squat like last year to keep himself in tip top shape.
So while Aaron's been RUNNING THE TEAM...Brett's been loafing around.

All I'm saying is that Brett's gonna have to TAKE the job from Aaron this time around. He's no longer keeping the seat warm.

And just because Brett played well last year doesn't mean he his head and shoulders better this year.


ALSO this "Aaron hasn't played a down yet" is not true. He played
in a regular season game. Phillip Rivers didn't play a DOWN for 2 years
and they still believed he should start.

It's not infallible for the Packers brass to have seen ENOUGH in Aaron to want him be the GUY from now on.

It's Natural. The old lion is not going to give up his spot easily and the young lion is not going to let him have it w/out a fight now.


Also Aaron's Dad's name is ED RODGERS...

not Cal2GreenBay..(my name's Mike)...
and last name's not Rodgers...

One, I didn't know you had a security camera inside the Favre's residence and you know that Favre hasn't done "squat". How do you know he hasn't been working out like any other season?

Two, you honestly believe that Favre wasn't one of the best QB's in the league last year? 4000 yards, 28 TD's? Your reply makes it sound like you don't evne think Favre was that impressive last year.

Three, Rodgers hasn't started a game, relax. "He had to bust his *** to keep his SPOT". HOW do you know that? Based on WHAT? I never read a single thing last year saying that Favre and Rodgers were competing and Rodgers evne had a CHANCE to take the job of Favre.

Your comments are not even supported by links or some kind of source. Your clearly related to Rodgers some how or roomed with him in college or something.

Like some people's comments that they see the potential is Rodgers, etc. Fine, everyone has an opinion. But to talk down to Favre based on no actual support, uncalled for.

 

[longtimefan]

Even redsox thinks your Rodgers dad..

 

[PackFaninBucLand]

If we can't trade him, let him play for MN or, better yet, Chicago. I'd love to see Favre vs. Rodgers.

 

[tromadz]

whoever came up with the term "favrefirsters" really needs to get a life. Not cute, cool or funny. Pretty dorky & gay if you ask me.

1) Who came up with "Favre-Firster". It is SO childish.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

If you want to see Favre no matter how detrimental to the team it is...well...if it walks like a duck...

 

[RedSoxExcel]

whoever came up with the term "favrefirsters" really needs to get a life. Not cute, cool or funny. Pretty dorky & gay if you ask me.

1) Who came up with "Favre-Firster". It is SO childish.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

If you want to see Favre no matter how detrimental to the team it is...well...if it walks like a duck...

I don't get this. You are usually pretty logical and level headed in your arguments. I'm a Favre Firster because I think Favre gives us a better chance at winning and someone with a 4000 yard/28 TD season is better than someone that hasn't started a game. Doesn't the reverse make you a Rodgers Firster? Because it is all opinion. How can you be so certain that Favre is detrimental to the team, what inside information do you have, that none of us have?

It's opinion at the end of the day. I don't get how you have the exact reverse opinion doesn't make you a "Rodgers Firster".

I've said it before, I am rooting for the Packers regardless, TT can do whatever he wants, my opinion is I would rather have Favre, just like your opinion is you'd rather have Rodgers. If TT doesn't want him and he wants to come back, he will be released or traded and Rodgers starts. I don't get what the issue is.

 

[tromadz]

whoever came up with the term "favrefirsters" really needs to get a life. Not cute, cool or funny. Pretty dorky & gay if you ask me.

1) Who came up with "Favre-Firster". It is SO childish.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

If you want to see Favre no matter how detrimental to the team it is...well...if it walks like a duck...

I don't get this. You are usually pretty logical and level headed in your arguments. I'm a Favre Firster because I think Favre gives us a better chance at winning and someone with a 4000 yard/28 TD season is better than someone that hasn't started a game.

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

Man over Team = you Player firster

I wanted Favre back. I said it multiple times after the Giants game, but the second he retired and the team made substantial steps forward to live in a post-favre era, I never wanted to see Favre on a football field again unless it was in the Favre DVDs I own(just one so far that came with the favre book, but im sure there will be more).

This isn't a decision that doesn't have repercussions. Every day he waited to come back(if thats indeed his plan), he dug the packers a deeper hole.

I don't understand how this is hard to understand.

 

[trippster]

Who is to say that favre coming back would be detrimental to the team?
Who is to say that if favre comes back, Rodgers is gone?
Who is to say that if Rodgers leaves, anyone wants him? they didn't in the draft.
Who's to say the Packers want him back but are not sure how to handle it so at the moment..."no comment", is the way to go?
Who's to say thay are trying to ink Rodgers to a long term deal with the provision that he will sit the next year or two, again?

Who is to say that if you believe the best for the Packers (right or wrong) is to have favre at the helm, makes you a favre-firster?

Who's to say Cheesy is intellegent with his 125 IQ? :shock:

Has a never ever starting QB ever beat out a 17 year veteran coming off a year like Favre?

And Cal2, please stop with the "Have you seen him in practice?" routine. As Mr. Pickles would so elequently reply, "Embarrassing!"

I am a Packers firster. That being said, I think TT and MM KNOW that Favre brings the best chance to "win now". However, I feel they are looking long term and are willing to give up on success (SB) this year for hopefully, a very good long term.

That is the dilemma they face.

 

[bozz_2006]

Who is to say that favre coming back would be detrimental to the team?
Who is to say that if favre comes back, Rodgers is gone?
Who is to say that if Rodgers leaves, anyone wants him? they didn't in the draft.
Who's to say the Packers want him back but are not sure how to handle it so at the moment..."no comment", is the way to go?
Who's to say thay are trying to ink Rodgers to a long term deal with the provision that he will sit the next year or two, again?

Who is to say that if you believe the best for the Packers (right or wrong) is to have favre at the helm, makes you a favre-firster?

Who's to say Cheesy is intellegent with his 125 IQ? :shock:

Has a never ever starting QB ever beat out a 17 year veteran coming off a year like Favre?

And Cal2, please stop with the "Have you seen him in practice?" routine. As Mr. Pickles would so elequently reply, "Embarrassing!"

I am a Packers firster. That being said, I think TT and MM KNOW that Favre brings the best chance to "win now". However, I feel they are looking long term and are willing to give up on success (SB) this year for hopefully, a very good long term.

That is the dilemma they face.

Maybe they know who gives them the best chance to win in January... and Favre looked pretty darn old during last year's really cold games. (The Seattle playoff game doesn't count. it wasn't cold that day)

 

[dd80forever]

1) Who came up with "Favre-Firster". It is SO childish. Because people don't agree with you that Rodgers is better for this team than Favre, they are automatically Favre-Firsters. Doesn't that mean you are a "Rodgers-Firster". I'm not a Favre fan, I'm not a Rodgers fan, I'm a Packers fan AND I'm a fan of winning and I think Favre gives us a better chance at that. I don't fully believe in Rodgers based on half a game against Dallas. He hasn't even been healthy. I'd rather take the guy that threw for 4,000 yards and 28 TD's and was a Pro Bowl starter than a unproven rookie, oh no, I'm a "Favre-firster".

2) The draft issue, how does anyone on this board know what TT was thinking when he picked his players. How do you know he didn't just take the best player available or he was in love with Flynn months ago and was going to take him regardless if he was available. I don't understand where people have this inside information that TT drafted 2 QB's based solely on Favre retiring. And arn't you kind of grasping at straws, do you really think the difference between Flynn and someone else at that spot will make a unbelievable difference down the line? IMO, the Flynn pick/Favre drama is highly overrated and people grasping at straws to try to make Favre look like an a-hole.

3) Can someone people explain what the drama is here? If the Packers decide they don't want Favre (which IMO is pretty apprent, with the whole "Packers have no comment" reaction), why is everyone so worked up. He'll come back out of retirement, we will trade or release him. What's the issue then? Seriously, I don't get it but maybe I'm missing something.

And please please, don't use the "distraction" point. Tiki Barber created a million distrations, Strahan came in and out of retirement and the Giants won the Super Bowl. The Pats had spygate all over them all season and they made it to the Super Bowl with a 18-0 record. I think if your a good team, you overcome that. If Rodgers is who everyone says he is, he can overcome the distraction of Favre playing for another team.

4) Why are people commenting on his "legacy", its his legacy, he can do whatever he wants with it, why does it affect you as a Packers fan whether he comes out of retirement and plays for another team. I really don't htink he cares what you think or what some columnist thinks, he's a HOF QB with a Super Bowl and every conceivable team and individual QB record. I really doubt he sits there and worries about what Joe in GB is going to say if he comes back or not, he's broken a lot of bones in his body for 16 years for this organization and played hurt and gave it his all. If you get worked up over his legacy, I really doubt he gives a rat's you know what.

Micheal Jordan came back and played for the Wizards. I lived in Chicago at the time. People were worked up for a bit, two years later, no one cares. He's still a legend there and everyone loves him. Montana played for the Chiefs, is anyone even remember that? In the grand scheme of things, I really don't think his "legacy" (whatever that means) is hurt.

Post of the Year......Congrats

 

[dd80forever]

Who is to say that favre coming back would be detrimental to the team?
Who is to say that if favre comes back, Rodgers is gone?
Who is to say that if Rodgers leaves, anyone wants him? they didn't in the draft.
Who's to say the Packers want him back but are not sure how to handle it so at the moment..."no comment", is the way to go?
Who's to say thay are trying to ink Rodgers to a long term deal with the provision that he will sit the next year or two, again?

Who is to say that if you believe the best for the Packers (right or wrong) is to have favre at the helm, makes you a favre-firster?

Who's to say Cheesy is intellegent with his 125 IQ? :shock:

Has a never ever starting QB ever beat out a 17 year veteran coming off a year like Favre?

And Cal2, please stop with the "Have you seen him in practice?" routine. As Mr. Pickles would so elequently reply, "Embarrassing!"

I am a Packers firster. That being said, I think TT and MM KNOW that Favre brings the best chance to "win now". However, I feel they are looking long term and are willing to give up on success (SB) this year for hopefully, a very good long term.

That is the dilemma they face.

Gotta love Tripp......always stickin it to them youngens

 

[RedSoxExcel]

whoever came up with the term "favrefirsters" really needs to get a life. Not cute, cool or funny. Pretty dorky & gay if you ask me.

1) Who came up with "Favre-Firster". It is SO childish.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

If you want to see Favre no matter how detrimental to the team it is...well...if it walks like a duck...

I don't get this. You are usually pretty logical and level headed in your arguments. I'm a Favre Firster because I think Favre gives us a better chance at winning and someone with a 4000 yard/28 TD season is better than someone that hasn't started a game.

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

Man over Team = you Player firster

I wanted Favre back. I said it multiple times after the Giants game, but the second he retired and the team made substantial steps forward to live in a post-favre era, I never wanted to see Favre on a football field again unless it was in the Favre DVDs I own(just one so far that came with the favre book, but im sure there will be more).

This isn't a decision that doesn't have repercussions. Every day he waited to come back(if thats indeed his plan), he dug the packers a deeper hole.

I don't understand how this is hard to understand.

Can you please explain this detrimental comment. I'm honestly curious as to what that means. What makes you such an expert and so certain of that result? And if I missed something in a previous post, I'm sorry, I have not read all your posts and I'm sorry in advance if you have to type up your stance again.

If the Packers don't want him (which right now seems like they don't - but who knows), and they release or trade him in the next few weeks, how is that detrimental to the team? And please don't use the "distraction" excuse, see Giants 2007-08 and Pats 2007-08, if your a good team you overcome that.

If the Packers do want him, that means the management chose to keep him in which case, if your a Packers fan, you cheer for the Packers AND Favre just like I am going to cheer for the Packers AND Rodgers if we choose to release or trade him (assuming he comes back). It's up to TT, not you or me.

I don't get how this is a distraction. And please don't bring up that draft argument again because neither you nor me know what TT was thinking when he picked Flynn and who he would have selected if Favre had returned earlier.

 

[johnny_blood]

Another detriment you have to admit is that time was spent developing the offense to feature Rodgers' peculiar talents.

That is a cost, but I think the costs altogether are more than offset by Favre being the superior QB. Players are more important than offseason scheming.

As for Favre playing poorly in the cold, almost everyone else on the team also played poorly in the two cold games last year. Favre brought the team back from three deficits in their coldest game, a game in which the team was not good and we went back to having no running game. I was at the Soldier Field game until the bitter end, and Favre was not the only one blowing it out there.

If Favre wants to play, I want him starting for us because he gives us the best chance to win, which offsets all the sunk costs incurred during his "retirement."

If not then I think Rodgers will have a very nice season, and will be very crafty and smart for a first year starter. Get on board or shut your mouth!

 

[dd80forever]

What happens if Rodgers goes down in Week 1? Judging by his past GB better be preparing for this. The Pack have plenty of time to adjust

 

[tromadz]

whoever came up with the term "favrefirsters" really needs to get a life. Not cute, cool or funny. Pretty dorky & gay if you ask me.

1) Who came up with "Favre-Firster". It is SO childish.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

If you want to see Favre no matter how detrimental to the team it is...well...if it walks like a duck...

I don't get this. You are usually pretty logical and level headed in your arguments. I'm a Favre Firster because I think Favre gives us a better chance at winning and someone with a 4000 yard/28 TD season is better than someone that hasn't started a game.

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

Man over Team = you Player firster

I wanted Favre back. I said it multiple times after the Giants game, but the second he retired and the team made substantial steps forward to live in a post-favre era, I never wanted to see Favre on a football field again unless it was in the Favre DVDs I own(just one so far that came with the favre book, but im sure there will be more).

This isn't a decision that doesn't have repercussions. Every day he waited to come back(if thats indeed his plan), he dug the packers a deeper hole.

I don't understand how this is hard to understand.

Can you please explain this detrimental comment. I'm honestly curious as to what that means. What makes you such an expert and so certain of that result? And if I missed something in a previous post, I'm sorry, I have not read all your posts and I'm sorry in advance if you have to type up your stance again.

Ya know, I'm actually not going to, because i HAVE posted them several times. It's not the deepest board in the world, I'm sure you'll find them. I'm also not the only ones listing reasons(plural).

 

[dd80forever]

What a "Rodster"

 

[tromadz]

What a "Rodster"

Me? I want Rodgers to get what he wants even if it's bad for the team? You don't know what we mean when we say Favre-firster apparently.

Can't Favre just confirm he's done so we can get rid of you again?

 

[Title Town USA]

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

So having what you admit to be an "awesome" quarterback on your team is now detrimental? :?:

 

[dd80forever]

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

So having what you admit to be an "awesome" quarterback on your team is now detrimental? :?:

Odd concept, isn't it

 

[tromadz]

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

So having what you admit to be an "awesome" quarterback on your team is now detrimental? :?:

Get in the "Durr, I don't possibly get why this is bad!" line, please.

And then go to the "missed the point" line and get your hand stamped.

No re-entry.

Unless you change your username like KGB.

 

[tromadz]

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

So having what you admit to be an "awesome" quarterback on your team is now detrimental? :?:

Odd concept, isn't it

God you're dumb.

I'll make a deal with you(and the rest of the forum). I won't respond to any more of these favre threads until Favre or GB management respond to the rumors. K? And you...well you just enjoy your limited stay.

 

[cheesey]

Who's to say Cheesy is intellegent with his 125 IQ? :shock:

Huh???
I thought my comments made perfect sense.
In reality, what happens with Favre is not in his control anymore. He took away that control when he retired. Now it's up to the Packers mgmt whether or not they let him play here, or send him away.
I'm totally torn on all of this.
The main reason being..........will the entire team rally around Favre if he comes back, or will they shun him because of his waffleing. Not just this off season, but the past 2 also. Yes, he deserved time to decide. And he did decide. Yes, from what we hear through the "grapevine" he has an "itch". But just how serious IS that itch?
None of us really KNOWS the answers to ANY of the questions posed. We just have opinions based totally on the small tidbits we hear. So who really KNOWS what the REAL truth is? Only Favre, and the Packers mgmt.
I'm surely not gonna start a war with my Packer "family" on here, based on nothing more then a bunch of rumors that NONE of us know are even true.
If the Packers welcome Favre back, i will cheer for him. If not, then i will cheer on Rodgers, or whoever is our QB.
All this mess could have been avoided had Favre said he was coming back all along. Even if he felt he wasn't, he could have more easily changed his mind during camp, and it would have been more accepted. Like "The man wanted to play, but realized he couldn't any more". That would have gone over easier, and no one would have got hurt.
Oh well......just my humble opinions.

 

[RedSoxExcel]

whoever came up with the term "favrefirsters" really needs to get a life. Not cute, cool or funny. Pretty dorky & gay if you ask me.

1) Who came up with "Favre-Firster". It is SO childish.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

If you want to see Favre no matter how detrimental to the team it is...well...if it walks like a duck...

I don't get this. You are usually pretty logical and level headed in your arguments. I'm a Favre Firster because I think Favre gives us a better chance at winning and someone with a 4000 yard/28 TD season is better than someone that hasn't started a game.

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

Man over Team = you Player firster

I wanted Favre back. I said it multiple times after the Giants game, but the second he retired and the team made substantial steps forward to live in a post-favre era, I never wanted to see Favre on a football field again unless it was in the Favre DVDs I own(just one so far that came with the favre book, but im sure there will be more).

This isn't a decision that doesn't have repercussions. Every day he waited to come back(if thats indeed his plan), he dug the packers a deeper hole.

I don't understand how this is hard to understand.

Can you please explain this detrimental comment. I'm honestly curious as to what that means. What makes you such an expert and so certain of that result? And if I missed something in a previous post, I'm sorry, I have not read all your posts and I'm sorry in advance if you have to type up your stance again.

Ya know, I'm actually not going to, because i HAVE posted them several times. It's not the deepest board in the world, I'm sure you'll find them. I'm also not the only ones listing reasons(plural).

Does Favre returning to the NFL also detrimental to development of poor Rodgers and/or the Packers too? Because it looks like the Packers have moved on (their right to), so if he returns, it will likely be to another team.

 

[dd80forever]

God you're dumb.

Impressive

 

[Title Town USA]

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

So having what you admit to be an "awesome" quarterback on your team is now detrimental? :?:

Odd concept, isn't it

yeah, sure is....Isn't the goal of the Packers and every NFL team to win? If that's the case, then Favre should be welcomed back with open arms as Al Harris said.

 

[RedSoxExcel]

NO, you're a Favre firster because you are blinded by Favre's past awesomeness and want him back even if it is detrimental to the team.

So having what you admit to be an "awesome" quarterback on your team is now detrimental? :?:

Odd concept, isn't it

God you're dumb.

I'll make a deal with you(and the rest of the forum). I won't respond to any more of these favre threads until Favre or GB management respond to the rumors. K? And you...well you just enjoy your limited stay.

This is like the "I'm taking my ball home and I'm not playing with you" response. Only reason people are upset is because you dismiss anyone that has a different view than you "stupid" or "dumb". When the last time I checked no one on this board is an insider and everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it is different than your own.

I think the chances of Rodgers living up to expectations are low because a) injuries (we Packers fan take QB durability for granted because we had Favre) and b) most QB's in the NFL fail and c) especially falling a HOF QB. But I understand if you think he is going to do great (i.e. Dallas game) or his college career. But I don't call you an idiot and say that your only a Rodgers fan. That's all I'm saying. I said it once, I'll say it again, I think Favre Firster defence is getting old and makes no sense IMO. I'm so sorry, that I'm a fan of winning and I think Favre gives us a better chance at that. Wow, I really hate the Packers.